Only 10 women won Grand Slam titles this decade (compared to 15 men -- and they had Federer!), so the top 10 for the decade isn't very deep. Dementieva gets the nod for her consistency (she's finished in the top eight in six of the past seven years) and 14 tour titles. She hasn't appeared in a Grand Slam final since 2003, however, despite numerous semifinals (including two this year).

9. Svetlana Kuznetsova -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: None

The Russian took home two Slams in the decade: the 2004 U.S Open and the French in 2009. Despite that, she's never hit the top spot in the rankings even though four players reached No. 1 in the past six years without having done so. (They are Amelie Mauresmo, Kim Clijsters, Jelena Jankovic and Dinara Safina. The former two eventually won a major, the latter two are still waiting.)

8. Amelie Mauresmo -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: 39

After years of near misses, Mauresmo finally won a Grand Slam in 2006, taking the Australian Open and Wimbledon at the relatively-advanced age of 27. She became the first Frenchwoman to win two Grand Slams in a year since 1925. Her reign at the top was short-lived. Starting the next year, Mauresmo plummeted in the rankings and wouldn't advance past the fourth round of a major for the rest of her career.

7. Lindsay Davenport -- Grand Slams: 1, Weeks at No. 1: 76

Davenport was No. 1 for more weeks this decade than all but two women, but she finished with the same amount of Grand Slams as Anastasia Myskina and Ana Ivanovic. She made four more finals and 10 semis in the Slams, helping her to three year-end No. 1 rankings.

6. Kim Clijsters -- Grand Slams: 2, Weeks at No. 1: 19

For the first half of the decade, Clijsters had the dreaded tag of "greatest player without a major". She shed that label in the '05 U.S. Open and buried it completely four years later with her stunning victory on the same court after coming back from retirement (and becoming a mother).

5. Jennifer Capriati -- Grand Slams: 3, Weeks at No. 1: 17

At one stretch at the beginning of the decade, Jennifer Capriati won three of five Grand Slams and made the semifinals in seven straight majors. In a sport where comebacks are king, Capriati's may have been the best. From 1993 until 2000 she wasn't a factor in the game -- playing in just six Slams from '93 until '98. Then, all of a sudden, she was the best women's tennis player in the world. (For what it's worth, I changed around the rankings of Nos. 4-8 about two dozen times.)

4. Venus Williams -- Grand Slams: 5, Weeks at No. 1: 11

It's a little hard to believe that Venus has only been No. 1 for 11 weeks in her career. Just think of what she could have done with a modicum of interest. She won half of the Wimbledons played during the decade and won four of six Slams in 2000 and 2001 (including the famed U.S. Open final against her sister in the first year of the century).

3. Maria Sharapova -- Grand Slams: 3, Weeks at No. 1: 17

When, at 17, she became the third-youngest woman ever to win the U.S. Open, big things were expected from Maria Sharapova. Expectations were so high that the two Grand Slams and six consecutive years in the final top 10 that followed seemed slightly disappointing. This is largely because her results in the two biggest tournaments of the year (Wimbledon and the U.S. Open) have been subpar of late. Since 2006, Sharapova has failed to reach the quarters in either event.

2. Justine Henin -- Grand Slams: 7, Weeks at No. 1: 117

Because she didn't overpower opponents like the Williams' or Sharapova, casual sports fans seemed to take for granted the greatness of Henin (she dropped the Hardenne in 2007). Yet she won seven Slams and spent over two years at No. 1 (non-consecutively) in the middle of the decade. With her comeback set to begin in January, is there a chance she could appear on this same list 10 years from now?

1. Serena Williams -- Grand Slams: 10, Weeks at No. 1: 84

When Serena first came along she was just Venus's little sister. It didn't take long for her to pass her sibling, and the rest of the tennis world, behind. She's always the most interesting player on the court, whether it be because of her prodigious talent, unpredictable behavior or flashy outfits. One-quarter of the decade's Grand Slam trophies are in her possession, even though it's largely accepted that she didn't fully utilize her talents, which only goes to show just how great Serena Williams truly is.

This list can't be real. Sharapova over Venus, who has 7 not 5 grandslams. And Ivanovic is clearly above Dementieva with get 1 grand slam. And I didn't even really scan the list much after those to obvious faults.

Sorry that list has problems, I don't agree with Sharapova over Venus first off. Yes Sharapova has clearer all around record during her best years but Venus at her best in this decade was way more dominant, and was in general much stronger at her best in this decade. Venus has also been present the entire decade, where as sharapova has only been a real force anyway for like, 4 years out of this decade.

Capriati at number 5!!!!! sorry but no, she at most should only have won one slam, during her slam winning period she only held 1 non slam title and after 2002 she was never in another final and was pretty much dominated by every other big name around her in big defining matches. The fact that she ranks over Clijsters is almost sickening, and Davenport, even though she only won 1 slam, deserves to be higher as well because of her strong years in 2005, the summer of 2004 and even the later half of 2000 where she was arguably the 2nd best in the world.

Sharapova over Venus Williams is absolutely ridiculous. What is even more disturbing is reading that this writer says he changed his mind a bunch of times between places #4 to #8 which means he sees a big gap from the top 3 ending with Maria to the next group including Venus, and also that he had flirted with having Venus in an even lower spot than 4th. Outrageous.

Capriati absoutely does not deserve a ranking as high as #5. Yes 3 slams but forgetting for a second the insane amount of luck she had to win those 3 slams, what about her lack of overall tournament success, her poor head to heads with top players, and the far superior overall success outside their 2 slams wins both Clijsters and Mauresmo had which altogether would easily make up for Capriati's other slam.

Stupid list by an apparently stupid writer. Here is a more reasonable list:

1. Serena
2. Henin
3. Venus- could be argued as #2 though, really close between her and Henin
-----big gap-----
4. Clijsters
5. Sharapova- had a hard time deciding between her and Kim as well
-----big gap-----
6. Mauresmo
7. Davenport- tons of bad luck, and 2 fairly well deserved year end #1s in 2004 and 2005.
8. Capriati- yes 3 slams but virtually nothing else to back them up, and her 3rd slam at the 02 Australian Open title was the single most lucky and undeserved slam win for a women in the last 30 years.
9. Kuznetsova- the only player almost as lucky as Capriati
10. Ivanovic- she put it down in the slams, Dementieva did not to the same degree.

Sorry that list has problems, I don't agree with Sharapova over Venus first off. Yes Sharapova has clearer all around record during her best years but Venus at her best in this decade was way more dominant, and was in general much stronger at her best in this decade. Venus has also been present the entire decade, where as sharapova has only been a real force anyway for like, 4 years out of this decade.

Capriati at number 5!!!!! sorry but no, she at most should only have won one slam, during her slam winning period she only held 1 non slam title and after 2002 she was never in another final and was pretty much dominated by every other big name around her in big defining matches. The fact that she ranks over Clijsters is almost sickening, and Davenport, even though she only won 1 slam, deserves to be higher as well because of her strong years in 2005, the summer of 2004 and even the later half of 2000 where she was arguably the 2nd best in the world.

Sorry that list has problems, I don't agree with Sharapova over Venus first off. Yes Sharapova has clearer all around record during her best years but Venus at her best in this decade was way more dominant, and was in general much stronger at her best in this decade. Venus has also been present the entire decade, where as sharapova has only been a real force anyway for like, 4 years out of this decade.

Capriati at number 5!!!!! sorry but no, she at most should only have won one slam, during her slam winning period she only held 1 non slam title and after 2002 she was never in another final and was pretty much dominated by every other big name around her in big defining matches. The fact that she ranks over Clijsters is almost sickening, and Davenport, even though she only won 1 slam, deserves to be higher as well because of her strong years in 2005, the summer of 2004 and even the later half of 2000 where she was arguably the 2nd best in the world.

Sorry that list has problems, I don't agree with Sharapova over Venus first off. Yes Sharapova has clearer all around record during her best years but Venus at her best in this decade was way more dominant, and was in general much stronger at her best in this decade. Venus has also been present the entire decade, where as sharapova has only been a real force anyway for like, 4 years out of this decade.

Capriati at number 5!!!!! sorry but no, she at most should only have won one slam, during her slam winning period she only held 1 non slam title and after 2002 she was never in another final and was pretty much dominated by every other big name around her in big defining matches. The fact that she ranks over Clijsters is almost sickening, and Davenport, even though she only won 1 slam, deserves to be higher as well because of her strong years in 2005, the summer of 2004 and even the later half of 2000 where she was arguably the 2nd best in the world.

This would be my list too! I've got to put Lindsay higher simply based on overall performance level. Venus, on GS creds, deserves to be #3. Clijsters vs.Sharapova maybe a bit debatable, but I'd lean to Maria as well. 7/8/9 pretty much a toss up between those 3....slot 10, does not really matter much, IHMO! I vote for Martina Navratilova based on her dubs comeback!

You have Capriati rated too low. 3 slams is 3 slams. At the very least there is no way to rank Davenport this decade over her. 1 slam can never be over 3.

Click to expand...

Davenport has more titles, more weeks @ number 1, more slam finals and a winning H2H with Capriati. Capriati was as lucky to win 3 slams this decade as Lindsay was to only win 1. Slams are the only thing Capriati has more of this decade then Lindsay, based on everything else, Lindsay>>>>>>Capriati.

The fact that she got insanely lucky to win 3 slams and should have only won one at most. Outside the slams during her best year of 2001 she only managed 1 title, which for a 2 slam winner is sad. She was then beaten at Wimbledon by an at the time clay court specialist on that clay court specialist's worst surface despite winning the first set comfortably, and got slaughtered by Venus who wasn't even playing all to phenominal in their US Open Semi Final. Her best year isn't even a top 5 year for a player in this decade, as Serena's 2002 and 2003, Venus's 2000 and 2001 and Henin's 2007 and 2006 are arguably all better. After 2002 she also never made a slam final, and yet she is one of the 5 best players of the decade? Sorry but no.